Criminal Law

Question 1

R v Woolmington

Answer 1

D showed gun to wife, it went off and killed her - proof beyond reasonable doubt

Question 2

Hill v Baxter

Answer 2

Act must be voluntary action - D ignored stop sign and crashed but claimed he was in automation

Question 3

State of affairs

Answer 3

Offences where D is found in this particular circumstances, irrelevant of how they got there.

Question 4

State of affairs case

Answer 4

Winzar v CC Kent
Police put drunk man out of hospital into their vehicle and arrested him one on the road for being drunk on the highway

Question 5

Exceptions of Positive Action Principle

Answer 5

Omissions

Question 6

Omission by Contractual Duty

Answer 6

R v Adomako
Anaesthetist failed to notice or check faulty breathing tube

Question 7

Omission by virtue of relationship

Answer 7

R v Gibbins and Proctor
Parents failed to feed child who died of starvation

Question 8

Omission by Voluntarily taking care of another

Answer 8

R v Evans
Teen heroin addict overdosed on heroin provided by half-sister and died after mum and sister failed to get help

Question 9

Omission by duty from holding a public office

Answer 9

R v Dytham
D was policeman and failed to intervene in violent attack

Question 10

Omission by duty from Ds conduct

Answer 10

R v Miller
D (squatter) started fire from cigarette in empty home and didn’t attempt to help

Question 11

‘But for’ test

Answer 11

R v Pagett
D used girlfriend as human shield against policeman. She was shot and died.

Question 12

Novus Actus Interveniens -
Third party intervention

Answer 12

R v Smith
Soldier stabbed another in lung, who was given incorrect treatment and died. Stab was overwhelming cause of death so original stabbed was guilty.

Question 13

Novia Actus Interveniens -
Act of Victim

Answer 13

R v Roberts
Girl jumped from car to escape sexual advances and was injured from jump.

Question 14

Novus Actus Interveniens -
Natural but predictable act

Answer 14

R v Blaue
Woman stabbed and declined blood transfusion for religious reasons (thin skull rule)

Question 15

Direct intent

Answer 15

Obvious purpose
R v Mohan
D drives at policeman intending to scare/ injure him

Question 16

Oblique/ indirect intent

Answer 16

Virtual certainty
R v Woolin
D throws baby against wall who dies - the death was a virtual certainty of his actions

Question 17

Recklessness

Answer 17

R v Cunningham
D takes gas meter off wall to steal money inside. Gas leak injures neighbours.

Question 18

Oblique/ indirect intent test

Answer 18

1. Was the outcome a virtual certainty of Ds actions?
2. Did D realise this?

Question 19

Subjective recklessness test

Answer 19

1. Was D aware of the risk?
2. Did D take the risk anyway?

Question 20

Transferred Malice

Answer 20

Same offence to different victim
R v Mitchell
D pushes old man who fell onto and injured old woman

Question 21

Strict liability offences

Answer 21

Minor (no fault) offences which don’t require mens rea
Harrow v Shah and Shah
Ds owned newsagents and staff sold lottery tickets to under 16 year old despite being told not to repeatedly

Question 22

How are Strict liability offences established?

Answer 22

1. Judge starts with presumption that mens rea is required
2. If act is not clear, judge looks for words to indicate mens rea
3. Sweet v parsley principle means even if there are no words, judge presumes mens rea anyways

Question 23

Strict liability principle

Answer 23

Sweet v Parsley
- even if there are no words in the act to indicate mens rea, judge will presume it is required for the offence

Question 24

Reasons for strict liability offences

Answer 24

1. save legal system time and money (lengthy prosecutions aren’t required)
2. To deter potential offenders - they will be convicted despite circumstances
3. Place onus on individuals to be responsible for their actions

Question 25

Contemporaneity principle

Answer 25

Actus reus and men’s rea must both be present at the same time (coincidence)

Question 26

Exception of contemporaneity 1

Answer 26

Continuing Act principle - D commits AR without realising but continues after MR is formed Fagan v met police D drove into police foot and refused to get off

Question 27

Exception of contemporainety 2

Answer 27

Single Transaction Principle MR is well before AR R v Church - D knocks partner out and throws body in river. She drowned and was alive when thrown into river

Question 28

Assault definition

Answer 28

An act which causes another person to apprehend the infliction of immediate, unlawful force.

Question 29

‘An act’

Answer 29

Omission will not suffice (Fagan)

Question 30

Logdon v DPP

Answer 30

D points replica gun at V which caused V to apprehend immediate threat of violence

Question 31

Constanza

Answer 31

D wrote hundreds of threat letters to V - written words can be assault

Question 32

R v Ireland

Answer 32

D made silent phone calls which caused psychological harm to 3 women

Question 33

R v Lamb

Answer 33

D points gun at someone which they both believed to be unloaded - no apprehension

Question 34

Smith v CS Woking

Answer 34

V saw D looking through window at night and apprehended immediate violence

Question 35

Tuberville v Savage

Answer 35

Words can negate an assault (Conditional threat)

Question 36

Intent or Reckless case

Answer 36

R v Venna Assault can be if D lashes/ kicks out (is reckless)

Question 37

R v Donovan

Answer 37

Harm must be more than transient and trifling to be ABH

Question 38

R v Chan Fook

Answer 38

ABH can include psychiatric harm

Question 39

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 39

Everyday jostling will not suffice as battery

Question 40

R v Thomas

Answer 40

Touching clothes can amount to battery

Question 41

R v Bollom

Answer 41

Age of V is important in determining if injuries are grevious

Question 42

R v Dica/ R v Golding

Answer 42

Transmitting STDs can be GBH

Question 43

R v Morrison

Answer 43

Resisting arrest can amount to s.18 GBH

Question 44

Proposed definition for assault

Answer 44

A person intentionally or recklessly causes another to think that any force or impact is or may be imminent, and the other doesn’t consent

Question 45

S.47 ABH reasons for reform

Answer 45

- out of date (no mental element or STD knowledge) - inconsistent (same max sentence for s.20 despite different outcomes) - wording (maliciously suggests ill-will to V)

Question 46

S.20 GBH reasons for reform

Answer 46

- out of date (no mental reference) - max sentence is same as s.47 - s.20 says inflict, s.18 says cause

Question 47

Proposed definition for s.20 GBH

Answer 47

Recklessly causing serious injury (with max sentence of 7 years)

Question 48

S.18 GBH proposed definition

Answer 48

Intentionally causing serious injury (with max sentence of life)